Opinion
No. CIV 02-0494-PHX-SMM.
July 7, 2006
ORDER
Pending before the Court is Defendants' Motion to Correct the Docket. (Dkt. 326.) Defendants contend they have discovered "what appear to be errors in the docket entries," and request those entries be corrected. With one exception, the Court denies this request:
1. Docket numbers 235, 236, 237, 238, and 240 do appear on the Court's docket. Thus, no correction is warranted.
2. All five exhibits attached to docket number 285 appear on the document maintained in the computer database. Thus, no correction is warranted.
3. Although the "file dates" for docket numbers 294, 298 through 300, and 316 through 320 are do not appear to be the dates on which such documents were filed, and most likely refer to the date such documents were sealed, the filing dates may not be corrected because it would alter the docket numbers assigned to those documents. Throughout the pendency of this case, the Court has cited to documents by their assigned docket numbers. To reorganize the docket numbers at this point in the case would unnecessarily interfere with these proceedings by rendering citation of documents in the Court's previous orders unintelligible. Thus, no correction is warranted.
4. Document number 297 is a response to document number 236, not document number 235 as the docket reflects. This error can be corrected without disturbing the docket numbers of other documents. Thus, this error warrants correction.
Accordingly,
IT IS HEREBY ORDERED DENYING IN PART AND GRANTING IN PART
Defendants' Motion to Correct the Docket as detailed below. (Dkt. 326.)
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the Clerk of Court shall correct docket entry number 297 to reflect that it is a response to document number 236, not document number 235.